There have been repeated assertions made by various individuals that if USPA does not adopt a "standardized wingsuit training" program and associated "wingsuit instructor rating" that insurance companies will stop insuring skydiving aircraft.

These repeated assertions are based on an interpretation of one paragraph from an email sent last month to drop zone operators by Jeff Norris, whose company underwrites aircraft insurance for essentially all parachute centers using turbine aircraft.

That paragraph read:

Quote:

"I know there is a lot of activity already with respect to standardizing and regulating wing suit jumping and there is also a lot of resistance to it's regulation. I have heard the argument that USPA does not regulate freeflying or Crew activities so why regulate wing suit jumping? I would argue that those two activities are not causing the same problem that the wing suit jumpers are causing with aircraft collisions. Let's not wait to do something until someone brings down a whole airplane as a result of wing suit jumper ripping the horizontal stabilizer right off the fuselage."

From that paragraph, the primary proponent of "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" has created a sales pitch that starts out thusly:

Quote:

First and foremost, it's been demonstrated that insurance companies and DZOs want/need to see standardization of wingsuit training in order to best protect their interests in their aircraft.

Throughout mutliple threads on this subject, others have made a similar argument, all based on the above paragraph from the Norris email.

I too read that paragraph to mean that Jeff and/or the insurers seemed to be advocating a USPA-mandated wingsuit training course because the words he used seemd to be straight out of the primary proponent's own writings on the subject.

So I called Jeff and we had a very interesting conversation about this subject (and some others, too: He's an old-time skydiver and flight instructor for many years, so he goes way beyond just being an insurance underwriter in terms of appreciating and understanding sport parachuting).

Anyway, after our conversation, he sent me the following email, herre reproduced in its entirety per his request:

(Robin, please use this e-mail for it's only intended and ultimate agenda; wing suit safety. I would rather you quote it in its entirety than take bits and pieces out of it to fit any other purpose than it's overall intent.)

It was very good speaking with you Robin and thank you for alerting me to how some wing suit jumpers were interpreting my e-mail I sent out to all my aircraft operators that I insure regarding the wing suit jumper tail strike frequency problem. My e-mail was really only intended for those aircraft operators and its intent was to alert the aircraft operators to the very significant wing suit tail strike problem. I know that wing suit jumpers are a significant profit center for many of my clients and I wanted that income to continue for them plus, obviously, none of us wants to see jumpers injured or killed, and no one wants to read about a skydiving aircraft crash caused by a wing suit jumper and aircraft tail collision.

Apparently my e-mail reached some it was not intended for, which is fine, and you and some wing suit jumpers interpreted one paragraph of my e-mail as the insurance company advocating USPA regulation of wing suit jumping. To be clear, the insurance company is not advocating anything. All they told me is, if wing suit claims continue to be a problem, they will consider excluding that activity from my aircraft operators insurance policy. I suggested, as one possible solution, USPA regulation, to help promote wing suit safety. Please tell everyone not to concentrate on my word "regulation" but on my words "wing suit safety". If it can be regulated better and quicker some way else than through USPA formal regulation....Wonderful!

Many of my aircraft clients who received my e-mail have been very pro-active and have already instituted risk management protocols to help manage this risk. This was the whole intent of my e-mail to my aircraft operators; to save wing suit jumper lives, aircraft, and income. Things are already safer for wing suit jumpers at many drop zones across the country. My main agenda, with the help of all my aircraft operators, is to see the next 10 years go by without a single wing suit tail strike injury or death.

What is the wing suit community doing about regulating the problem, other that arguing about whether or not it should be regulated by the USPA? I think discussion is great but in my opinion, (now it is my opinion again) the wing suit community needs to redirect its discussion back onto the path of how to stop all tail strikes today! Let's make the last tail strike the last tail strike.

Jeff's answer is pretty reasonable and leaves things open. There needs to be a short term response to the problem, but then there can also be a long term response.

Of course the insurer wants to "standardize" in the sense of standardizing on a safe way to exit the airplane rather than a dangerous way to exit. A very good way to standardize what people do, is to standardize what people are taught, and that can be done by standardizing the training the teachers receive.

So the idea of "standardized training" could mean a lot of different things, and doesn't automatically imply a whole new USPA instructional and ratings system. Exactly what the role of the USPA should be, remains to be argued.

The title of your thread is "Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wing suit training via USPA""

In all fairness, that is not what I read into this e-mail. My take is, they support anything that eliminates tail strikes. Nowhere does he say he "does not support standardized wing suit training.

I'm hoping we can agree that training (correctly implemented) could be a good thing. If you're concerned about how this training might get implemented, get involved... run for a board position and help shape the solution. Proactive involvement trumps misdirected bitching every time.

wouldnt simply mandating an FFC with a legitimate signature to jump a wingsuit at all dropzones suffice? alot of places wont let you jump WS unless you have 200 jumps and a valid FFC signature, but most definitely not everywhere mandates this................. part of the FFC's should be at least one or two simulated wingsuit exits with the instructor keeping a keen eye on making sure the student keeps their "wings" closed on exit before they are actually allowed to jump a wingsuit.............

part of the FFC's should be at least one or two simulated wingsuit exits with the instructor keeping a keen eye on making sure the student keeps their "wings" closed on exit before they are actually allowed to jump a wingsuit.............

thoughts?

Better education, yes, but two jumps tucked up to prove you can do it? Nope. I think just getting the word out to DZO's to start education wingsuiters and policing the exits might work fine.

wouldnt simply mandating an FFC with a legitimate signature to jump a wingsuit at all dropzones suffice? alot of places wont let you jump WS unless you have 200 jumps and a valid FFC signature, but most definitely not everywhere mandates this................. part of the FFC's should be at least one or two simulated wingsuit exits with the instructor keeping a keen eye on making sure the student keeps their "wings" closed on exit before they are actually allowed to jump a wingsuit.............

thoughts?

I think part of the argument is how to define “legitimate signature” and a “valid FFC signature”.

I'll second that the title of this thread is incorrect and misleading. The gist of the email is that the insurance company does support the idea of standardized training in an effort to stem the problem with tail strikes, but that they do not have an opinion as to who administers said training. No where does he state an opposition to the USPA being the source, just that he does not see it as a requirement that they are involved to satisfy the insurance company.

The truth of the matter is that the insurance company doesn't care about required training at all, aside from the effect it will (might) have on reducing tail strikes. If there was a way to end tail strikes with no increased training requirement, like a static line that would hold your wings shut until you were 'x' feet from the plane, the insurance company would be happy with that. All they want is a solution, and they don't care where it comes from or what form it takes, so while this doesn't make the USPA a requirement, it also doesn't take them off the table all together.

I did think this was a neat misconception -

Quote:

I know that wing suit jumpers are a significant profit center for many of my clients

We all know that fun jumpers are not a 'profit center' for DZs, and when you distill that down to wingsuit jumpers, you can see that it's a 'blip' on the economic radar of a DZ. Take your average load on any given day, and think about how many wingsuiters there are on that load, maybe 1 or 2? How many loads fly with no wingsuiters? On loads with wingsuiters, how many of them left non-wingsuiting jumpers on the ground because the load was full, meaning that if the wingsuiters were not there, those slots would be full with paying jumpers anyway?

The point is that there is very little incentive for DZOs to allow wingsuiters at their DZ. Sure, Perris hosted 100 ways the other week, but without a couple dozen DZs out there willing to allow 1 or 2 wingsuiters per load, where the flyers could build their skills and experience, those 100 ways would have never happened. So short of a handful of boogies or big ways, the wingsuit community has no financial clout with DZOs, and shouldn't expect to be insulated if the insurance company balks and wants to raise rates or pull coverage.

I've said it before, and it's the same thing Jeff said, whatever the method, something needs to be done ASAP to take of this situation. One of the problems is that is seems that there is no problem until the next tail strike happens. We could all spend the next weekend wingsuiting with no restrictions as long as there is no tail strike. It's like jumping with a worn out line set, it's a risk, but as long as no lines break, everything will be just fine and you can jump as normal. Once a line breaks, however, the problem you had all along rears it's ugly head, and now you have a 'real' problem.

part of the FFC's should be at least one or two simulated wingsuit exits with the instructor keeping a keen eye on making sure the student keeps their "wings" closed on exit before they are actually allowed to jump a wingsuit.............

thoughts?

Better education, yes, but two jumps tucked up to prove you can do it? Nope. I think just getting the word out to DZO's to start education wingsuiters and policing the exits might work fine.

Where is the evidence that ANY tail strike has been due to inadequate initial instruction?

Most fatal accidents are experienced jumpers forgetting the basics. And given that the #1 cause of fatalities are screwups under canopies - and given that canopy training for students is minimal right now - that argues that early training might indeed make a big difference.

I think we need two things. We need an immediate solution to the problem; Robin's gadgets and signs might be a solution there. That won't help people thinking about starting out in wingsuiting, and it won't help the habitually inattentive, but it might reduce incidents which we need to do.

We also need a long term solution or we will be looking at exactly the same problem in 5 years. We need better training. USPA might be the people to do that; the USWSA (to make up an acronym) might be the people to do that. If experience is any guide, the approach of "just let each DZO figure it out themselves" will not work, any better than it's worked for canopy fatalities or pattern collisions.

IIRC the original Birdman sylabus clearly instructed wingsuiters to exit the a/c fully open and delta'd out. How many of the highly experienced wingsuiters were originally taught through that program? I don't know. But it's worth mentioning.

Where is the evidence that ANY tail strike has been due to inadequate initial instruction?

In reply to:

I understand your point, but on 'some level' wouldn't the tail-strike be the evidence?

If you are going to claim that, you have to claim that EVERY skydiving accident is due to inadequate initial training. After all, we are supposed to be trained to pull on time, avoid other canopies, not turn low, have a hard deck, avoid target fixation, fly a predictable pattern... yet experienced people fail to perform these things on a regular basis and end up in the "incidents" column.

I submit that it's not lack of training in most cases, it's when experienced people decide the training can be ignored.

Skyjumpenfool: The title of your thread is "Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wing suit training via USPA""

In all fairness, that is not what I read into this e-mail.

Quote:

davelepka: I'll second that the title of this thread is incorrect and misleading. The gist of the email is that the insurance company does support the idea of standardized training in an effort to stem the problem with tail strikes, but that they do not have an opinion as to who administers said training.

The word "support" has been changed to "demand" in the title because you and Dave are right; the word "support" can be read to suggest that the insurers oppose USPA regulation of wingsuiting and that is not the case -- as Jeff makes clear in his followup email, the insurers neither support nor oppose USPA regulation of wingsuiting; they just want tail strikes stopped yesterday.

Where is the evidence that ANY tail strike has been due to inadequate initial instruction?

In reply to:

I understand your point, but on 'some level' wouldn't the tail-strike be the evidence?

If you are going to claim that, you have to claim that EVERY skydiving accident is due to inadequate initial training. After all, we are supposed to be trained to pull on time, avoid other canopies, not turn low, have a hard deck, avoid target fixation, fly a predictable pattern... yet experienced people fail to perform these things on a regular basis and end up in the "incidents" column.

I submit that it's not lack of training in most cases, it's when experienced people decide the training can be ignored.

No argument there...

Maybe as I said in one of the other threads, the 'whole' culture of safety needs to be looked at.

But since here we're discussing wing-suits and tail strikes, wouldn't a specifically outlined progression of instruction by quality regulated instructors seem like a logical step?

Most certainly a continuing campaign designed to 'remind' people of what they have or 'should have' learned is a positive step as well...but hitting the problem from two sides, giving everyone the same baseline at the beginning would IMO reduce 'some' future hiccups.

It's growth & progress. Just because something worked 'before' doesn't mean now with more information & proven methods, and more people to spread it to, the 'old way' would be adequate or advisable.

I did my 1st jump with a 2.5 hr informal 'class' on ancient military S/L gear... with MY 'I' a couple years later the class was 6 hours and the gear was lots better. Growth & progress, now days one is hard pressed to even find a S/L course.

Lets be realistic, that part of the sport is growing fast...and as with AFF in the beginning, it could become geometric growth without the infrastructure in place to adequately address the influx.

Easier and smarter to 'fix' a possible/probable bad situation before it happens than after...and considering the tone of the insurers caution & warning ~ we may already be at the front end of the 'after'.

Easier and smarter to 'fix' a possible/probable bad situation before it happens than after...and considering the tone of the insurers caution & warning ~ we may already be at the front end of the 'after'.

I'm not aware of anyone opposed to a standardized curriculum.

All the objections I am aware of relate to creating a USPA rating system parallel to AFF (with WS-I, WS-I/E, WS course directors, evaluators, etc) with all the bureaucracy that entails.

It doesn't take a USPA rating to tell someone to keep their wings closed on exiting the plane. Even you and I could do that.

Easier and smarter to 'fix' a possible/probable bad situation before it happens than after...and considering the tone of the insurers caution & warning ~ we may already be at the front end of the 'after'.

I'm not aware of anyone opposed to a standardized curriculum.

All the objections I am aware of relate to creating a USPA rating system parallel to AFF (with WS-I, WS-I/E, WS course directors, evaluators, etc) with all the bureaucracy that entails.

It doesn't take a USPA rating to tell someone to keep their wings closed on exiting the plane. Even you and I could do that.

What better way to implement & oversee a standardized curriculum than to have the sport's governing organization, with the tools already in place, do it?

Easier and smarter to 'fix' a possible/probable bad situation before it happens than after...and considering the tone of the insurers caution & warning ~ we may already be at the front end of the 'after'.

I'm not aware of anyone opposed to a standardized curriculum.

All the objections I am aware of relate to creating a USPA rating system parallel to AFF (with WS-I, WS-I/E, WS course directors, evaluators, etc) with all the bureaucracy that entails.

It doesn't take a USPA rating to tell someone to keep their wings closed on exiting the plane. Even you and I could do that.

What better way to implement & oversee a standardized curriculum than to have the sport's governing organization, with the tools already in place, do it?

IIRC the original Birdman sylabus clearly instructed wingsuiters to exit the a/c fully open and delta'd out. How many of the highly experienced wingsuiters were originally taught through that program? I don't know. But it's worth mentioning.

Completely wrong Kevin. I'm holding the birdman classic manual from before the skyflyers came out and I took the course with jari and and Kim. The exit is exactly the same as what SPOT taught you. Although in his diagrams and pictures Douglas drops down 25 - 30 feet before opening.

He has created nothing different just added to what was in place and removed the silly flat spin recovery foolishness and replaced it with instability procedures.

If you have any manual from any suit maker that states exit open I would really love to see it.

I don't know about courses, but it seems like BirdMan actually did suggest keeping the wings closed, from pretty early on.

For reference, an undated BirdMan manual I downloaded back in June 2002 states:

Quote:

For the first flights we strongly suggest that you exit from inside the aircraft, head high and with your chest to the relative wind (similar to an AFF level 1 exit.) To perform a good poised exit the most important thing is to have your wings closed (arms tight to your body, legs together) for the first second that you are exposed to the relative wind. After you have safely cleared the aircraft, spread your wings (both arms and legs, all at the same time, symmetrically) and start your flight.

IIRC the original Birdman sylabus clearly instructed wingsuiters to exit the a/c fully open and delta'd out. How many of the highly experienced wingsuiters were originally taught through that program? I don't know. But it's worth mentioning.

Completely wrong Kevin. I'm holding the birdman classic manual from before the skyflyers came out and I took the course with jari and and Kim. The exit is exactly the same as what SPOT taught you. Although in his diagrams and pictures Douglas drops down 25 - 30 feet before opening.

He has created nothing different just added to what was in place and removed the silly flat spin recovery foolishness and replaced it with instability procedures.

If you have any manual from any suit maker that states exit open I would really love to see it.

It might not have been Birdman. Spot showed me the document before the session started at the San Diego BOD meeting (and referenced it in that meeting). I'm sure of what I read, but I might have the document wrong. I'll ask him about it tomorrow when I get up there.

Easier and smarter to 'fix' a possible/probable bad situation before it happens than after...and considering the tone of the insurers caution & warning ~ we may already be at the front end of the 'after'.

I'm not aware of anyone opposed to a standardized curriculum.

All the objections I am aware of relate to creating a USPA rating system parallel to AFF (with WS-I, WS-I/E, WS course directors, evaluators, etc) with all the bureaucracy that entails.

It doesn't take a USPA rating to tell someone to keep their wings closed on exiting the plane. Even you and I could do that.

What better way to implement & oversee a standardized curriculum than to have the sport's governing organization, with the tools already in place, do it?

We already have WS-I, WS-I/E ratings...? I think not.

Since you already have the acronyms you've made my point for me...the 'road-map' is there and it's proven, you understang the ratings and who would do what & how.

Spot showed me the document before the session started at the San Diego BOD meeting (and referenced it in that meeting). I'm sure of what I read, but I might have the document wrong. It would be proposterous for any manufacturer to claim that as an ok exit technique. I've owned a suit from every big suit maker and don't recal ever seeing anything so crazy in print or online.

Now it would be very easy to fabricate something along those lines and distribute it to the unknowing BOD, whom very few have extensive WS knowledge, and other impressionable young minds as some kind of false fact. Lets say Im not suprised.